Professional Documents
Culture Documents
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed July 28, 2008, as follows:
On page 5, footnote 2, the following sentence is added:
Court
notes
that
appellate
counsel
did
not
represent
The
either
PUBLISHED
v.
ABDI PARVIZIAN,
Defendant-Appellant,
No. 07-1973
and
PARINCO OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Judah Lifschitz, SHAPIRO, LIFSCHITZ & SCHRAM,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. James M. Andriola, REED &
OPINION
KISER, Senior District Judge:
Abdi Parvizian ("Parvizian") guaranteed a debt owed to Nourison
Rug Corporation ("Nourison") by Parinco of Virginia, Inc.
("Parinco"). When Parinco defaulted, Nourison sued Parvizian to
recover the balance due. After the deadline for amending the pleadings had passed, Parvizian attempted to amend his answer to add the
defense of release. The United States District Court for the District of
Maryland denied the proposed amendment, and granted summary
judgment for Nourison. Parvizian now challenges the denial of the
amended complaint and the granting of summary judgment. Because
we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
I.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. Nourison is a manufacturer
and supplier of rugs and carpets. Parinco is a wholesaler of rugs, furniture, and furnishings. The President of Parinco is Allen Parvizian
("Allen"). Parvizian, the Appellant, is Allens father, but is not otherwise involved with the operations of Parinco.
In August 2004, Nourison and Parinco entered into a consignment
agreement under which Nourison would deliver rugs to Parinco on a
consignment basis and Parinco would sell them to the public. Parinco
sold these rugs but did not remit the payments to Nourison. By
August 2005 Parinco owed Nourison $2,386,735.98.
To satisfy this debt, Parinco delivered a Promissory Note (the
"Note") to Nourison on August 24, 2005. Parinco was to make
biweekly (semimonthly) payments of approximately $50,000 for two
years. The Note was to be self-liquidating and the balance could be
accelerated if a default was not cured within ten days. Further, "ac-
Parvizians Motion for Summary Judgment was denied and has not
been appealed.
able to the nonmovant. Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th Cir.
1994) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 813 (1994).
Parvizians arguments on this point are largely dependent on the
arguments addressed above If the District Court erred in excluding
the defense of release, then it surely erred in granting summary judgment against Parvizian. However, the exclusion of the defense of
release was not in error. Parvizian admitted that he guaranteed the
debt, that the debt was in default, and that he was on notice of such
default. Therefore the granting of summary judgment was appropriate.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.